Police chief unplugs Flock cameras after company ignores contract cancellation

So if they no longer have a contract, how is it legal for Flock to continue to use the allocated resources? Why not hit them with theft of service for continuing to draw power and use public infrastructure?

They will never change their behavior when there are no consequences for their actions.

One of the most compelling aspects of American governance is the latitude local law enforcement has. They can be both an ally and enemy to freedom.

The cameras seem vulnerable to a simple non-invasive opaque elastic-banded plastic shower cap

Gee, with vendors like this, who needs criminals?

Don't know about you; but I really can't imagine saying no to Police!

It is just that simple folks. Unplug it.

I wonder if millions of people take it to small claims court… would it work?

I think this is sensationalised - it looks like they only waited about a week after cancellation before they started unplugging them.

But I can't find any easy information on the contract they had with Flock, but it could well take a week for Flock to be able to respond properly after working out what to do with lawyers etc. The article says that the account management team had been in touch... so... I think this is just a PR piece for the police chief to look 'hard'.

We need flock in every politics bedrooms

And the real answer that needs to be done is a charge PER FLOCK DEVICE of criminal trespass, per day.

And the charge needs to be applied via RICO to all the C levels and the board of directors.

This doesn't abrogate the paid contract. But you trespass the owners of said hardware after being formally notified for removal.

A counter-example: how well received would it be if I made a solar/camera/battery/cell device that was called "PigSty" and only tracked police vehicles? How would the city/county/state go after me for those devices?

good

[dead]